Michael Bresciani
Colin Powell is right - - sometimes our questions are idiotic
By Michael Bresciani
Fox newsman Bill O'Reilly sees himself as a patriot and a culture warrior and thusly, he asks liberals, democrats and a plethora of lefty loons, extremists and wobbly wherewithals', some unusual questions. They are supposed to be hard questions, which almost no one else will ask.
O'Reilly, like so many Americans today, often does not ask the hard questions at all; for the two most obvious reasons. First, neither he, nor those he questions; know what the questions are.
An evangelist who once preached in the New England area some years ago headlined his meetings with the phrase, "If Jesus is the Answer – Then what are the Questions." It was a great lead in to his message. It is the question that everyone should consider before they put forth the idea that their particular moral, political or worldview has all the answers for America's societal woes and failures.
The second reason is that, like Bill O'Reilly, most people are what the Bible refers to as 'respecters of persons.' (Acts 10: 34) O'Reilly has repeatedly explained, that in his view, we must quickly adapt to all accepted protocol and show special deference to persons like the president and others in high office – simply because they are in high office.
This modern societal handicap was not shared by the ancient prophets and many of today's best preachers because they could not be true to God and respect man (false men or the falsehoods of man) at the same time. The proof of their willingness to speak to a man's character and behaviors regardless of the office the person held, be it king or president, rich or poor, priest or pauper, was constantly evidenced by the fact that they were imprisoned, beaten, and executed for doing so.
After stating several times, days in advance of his interview with Colin Powell, how much he respected him, doubt was already in play as to whether he could actually ask any question that mattered. O'Reilly's respect for Powell is now on record and so too, is the scathing rebuke Powell leveled at him for his hardest question.
When asked about the faulty information provided by the CIA about WMD's that led to the Gulf War against Iraq, Powell answered quickly and quite discreetly. But it was Powell's description of O'Reilly's question that we will forever hear in our ears.
Powell said "And I don't have to answer idiotic questions like that one about – whether I'm mad at somebody."
We may all be asking 'idiotic questions' when it comes to the spiritual, moral and political climate in America. If we are to believe Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he chose to correct all those dummies that still look to the bible, the constitution and other trusted sources for guidance, for anchoring and for foundational footing, by proclaiming that they must not mistake absolutism for principle. That great inaugural proclamation served to raise an even greater question.
In the absence of absolutisms, is the only alternative to finding the truth a matter of asking Mr. Obama what the truth is?
Are we at last blessed with the answer to the question once asked by Pontius Pilate as he condemned Christ to the death on the cross? Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (Jn 18: 38) To think it took twenty centuries for the answer to come around, now all we have to do is ask Barack Obama and the dem's and liberals! Please – check to see if my spelling of the word arrogance is correct.
Here are some easy questions we might want to ask right out of the gate.
Does a person have to be a liar to become the Secretary of State?
Hillary lied about dodging bullets in Bosnia, she lied about the murders of both Ambassador Stevens and brave American servicemen being killed in Benghazi, being caused by an anti-Muslim video. Then she steps down.
Right behind her, John Kerry who was caught lying about anti-war speeches, yacht registry problems and other mis-speaks, pops up as Obama's appointee for the job. Is the ability to tell straight faced lies what we look for in our Secretary; is it a prerequisite for the job?
Does Barack Obama's declaration that absolutism must not be mistaken for principle -apply to him?
Journalists of the day are loathe to depend on Wikipedia for all their cross referencing, but now and then we need to look no further, especially when their definitions hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Under 'dictator' Wikipedia says "A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with military control or bribes) but not officially sanctioned by heritage, as is an absolute monarch."
Now that Mr. Obama has used executive privilege more than any president in history and managed to circumvent much of the work of congress thereby, does the word, absolutist, used synonymously with the word dictator, mean he is a dictator, or by his own definition; is an unprincipled man?
Funny, how one question gives birth to so many others.
If Obama or his speech writers failed to connect the correlation between his use of the word absolutism, with his being labeled as a dictator or unprincipled president, how could his sycophants', adherents and happily obedient followers be expected to make the connection?
Lest we fail to mention it, millions of those who voted for Barack Obama are severely history challenged and unable to read at a fifth grade level – how lost is the Wikipedia definition on those voters.
If we find an alternative to oil, what will the Muslim nations do?
Curbing oil exploration, putting the brakes on the Canadian pipeline and regulating the oil companies into a deep pit while continuing to import oil from Arab nations may seem like a good idea to Mr. Obama, if we can find an alternative to oil.
MetLife's international advertising campaign drew attention to the "if" in life, but Obama's idea of an alternative to oil, is at the moment, an "if" that is much larger than life.
But let's imagine. If an alternative is found, what happens to the multi-billion dollar business of oil imports which Muslim nations now depend on? In countries like Saudi Arabia where the desert holds no other natural resources, what will happen to that economy?
Most OPEC nations will sink overnight, far below the level of third world countries. They would not have the means to carry a pea shooter up the block, so exporting Muslim extremism and terror would end overnight. We would then be exporting U.S. dollars to them to keep them afloat.
Was the dream of the Muslim president to wreck the entire Muslim world through a single technological breakthrough; or is that something he just never thought of?
The only thing more plentiful than OPEC oil, are the words spoken without much thought, produced by the liberals of the day. Too bad we couldn't burn them as an alternative fuel – the words – not the liberals.
Is it time to reverse the space program and get some things out of – outer space?
In the 60's the national quest was to get a man on the moon. Hooray, that's done. Mulling over moon rocks may still be a lot of fun but America's economy is on the rocks – earth rocks.
We have a president who has not submitted a budget in four years, spent untold billions on failed high tech nonsense that is actually way before its time, and bailed out everyone from the welfare moms to the largest corporations on the planet. Sixteen trillion dollars and counting, the national debt is further into outer space than any rocket, probe or satellite we have ever launched. But not to worry, Americans have responded to the crisis.
The American response has been to put the pop-culture icon amateur president Barack Obama back in office for a second term.
Americans are loathe to hear the negative rants of her doomsday prophets and prognosticators, but they are perfectly willing to put a doomsday president right back in office to finish the job of destroying its economy.
Many people agree, pulling some of the space debris down from outer space would be very wise. Why wouldn't they agree that we should try to get Barack Obama back down from the region of space where he actually sees himself as an economist who knows what he is doing? There seems to be time for vacations and golf, couldn't he find a little bit of time for some remedial economics courses?
Should all the blame be placed on Barack Obama, not so fast, there are plenty of places to -'re-distribute' the blame.
Untold millions of Americans too aloof to vote, Catholics who placed the word of Mr. Obama above their Pope, Evangelicals who couldn't accept Mitt Romney's Mormonism, tens of thousands of voters who were willing to commit fraud and last but not least; 62 million voters who thought it would be reasonable to let Barack Obama tinker with our failing economy for another four years to see if he could get it right.
It may be too late for economics courses, but I will offer a one line crash course in prophetic utterance. Our economy will crash and 'extreme poverty and scarcity' will follow, not in another twenty years but now.
How did the question about Obama's birth – become a question about when justice died?
Questions about Barack Obama's place of birth, his constitutional elegibilty, missing passport and school records and alleged false birth records, social security numbers and selective service records are still under review by a small army of experts and law enforcement officials. Those questions and the pursuit of the answers are easy to find. We will ask only one question here.
If a couple of crack detectives, a witness or two and a good prosecutor hand a case over to a jury of twelve men and women which results in the conviction of a burglar, a rapist or a murderer – aren't most of us satisfied to call that – justice?
Why do we label the work of dozens of detectives, forensic experts and a boat load of qualified witnesses on the question of Obama's place of origin and missing and fraudulent documentation – conspiracy theorists?
If Diogenes was living today and found one modern man who was honest, wouldn't he admit that the entire birth and records scandal is no longer about where Obama was born – it is now about where lady justice died.
If the gays were not born that way – have they been 'born again' that way?
Everyone knows of the term 'born again' because it is a reference to Christ insistence that no one would see the kingdom of God without being born again. (Jn 3: 3) By no means are we referring to that expression to frame the question posed here. Rather it is the theological opposite of the question that is open to examination.
Since children are not intrinsically evil and humans must reach the age of accountability before choosing a life of evil and general disobedience; are they born again of the spirit of the age (Satan) at the point they make that decision?
It takes no theological giant, exegete or expositor of basic Bible doctrine to come to the conclusion that they are. The Bible uses terms like "child of the devil" (Ac 13: 10,) "children of the devil" (1 Jn 3: 10,) and "children of disobedience" (Eph 2: 2) (Eph 5: 6) (Col 3: 6)
When an individual chooses to yield to satanic influences without resistance they become an agent for evil or a child of the devil. Whatever the particular temptation they yield to, has its own set of devils and demons that empower that specific division of Satan's kingdom.
If one third of the angels were cast out of heaven and followed Satan to the earth to help him set up his kingdom of darkness, would it be reasonable to conclude that they are not standing around twiddling their thumbs?
The math alone is hard to deny. If one women of the night (Mary Magdalene) had seven devils cast out of her (Lk 8:2) how many devils can the perverts of our day each have?
Gays have chosen a facile approach to the question which only speaks to their desperation in attempting to present their perversion to the world as a normal, un-chosen, case of "I was born this way."
The Apostle James warns that men should never say that when they are tempted to sin that God was doing the tempting. (Jas 1: 13, 14) Homosexuals have lowered the bar. According to them God has not led them to temptation, he simply made them that way – to start with.
There have always been liberals among us, but as the last days approach it will become a full free for all as predicted. How far gays go to justify their behavior is not surprising because heterosexuals go just as far. Case in point: On February 2, 2013 clashdaily.com posted a video where Sandra Fluke is seen comparing her fight for the government to provide coverage for her contraceptives with cancer treatment.
In the end, it is neither our faulty questions, nor our foolish answers, that decide our fate.
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." (Pr 21: 2)
© Michael Bresciani
February 6, 2013
Fox newsman Bill O'Reilly sees himself as a patriot and a culture warrior and thusly, he asks liberals, democrats and a plethora of lefty loons, extremists and wobbly wherewithals', some unusual questions. They are supposed to be hard questions, which almost no one else will ask.
O'Reilly, like so many Americans today, often does not ask the hard questions at all; for the two most obvious reasons. First, neither he, nor those he questions; know what the questions are.
An evangelist who once preached in the New England area some years ago headlined his meetings with the phrase, "If Jesus is the Answer – Then what are the Questions." It was a great lead in to his message. It is the question that everyone should consider before they put forth the idea that their particular moral, political or worldview has all the answers for America's societal woes and failures.
The second reason is that, like Bill O'Reilly, most people are what the Bible refers to as 'respecters of persons.' (Acts 10: 34) O'Reilly has repeatedly explained, that in his view, we must quickly adapt to all accepted protocol and show special deference to persons like the president and others in high office – simply because they are in high office.
This modern societal handicap was not shared by the ancient prophets and many of today's best preachers because they could not be true to God and respect man (false men or the falsehoods of man) at the same time. The proof of their willingness to speak to a man's character and behaviors regardless of the office the person held, be it king or president, rich or poor, priest or pauper, was constantly evidenced by the fact that they were imprisoned, beaten, and executed for doing so.
After stating several times, days in advance of his interview with Colin Powell, how much he respected him, doubt was already in play as to whether he could actually ask any question that mattered. O'Reilly's respect for Powell is now on record and so too, is the scathing rebuke Powell leveled at him for his hardest question.
When asked about the faulty information provided by the CIA about WMD's that led to the Gulf War against Iraq, Powell answered quickly and quite discreetly. But it was Powell's description of O'Reilly's question that we will forever hear in our ears.
Powell said "And I don't have to answer idiotic questions like that one about – whether I'm mad at somebody."
We may all be asking 'idiotic questions' when it comes to the spiritual, moral and political climate in America. If we are to believe Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he chose to correct all those dummies that still look to the bible, the constitution and other trusted sources for guidance, for anchoring and for foundational footing, by proclaiming that they must not mistake absolutism for principle. That great inaugural proclamation served to raise an even greater question.
In the absence of absolutisms, is the only alternative to finding the truth a matter of asking Mr. Obama what the truth is?
Are we at last blessed with the answer to the question once asked by Pontius Pilate as he condemned Christ to the death on the cross? Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (Jn 18: 38) To think it took twenty centuries for the answer to come around, now all we have to do is ask Barack Obama and the dem's and liberals! Please – check to see if my spelling of the word arrogance is correct.
Here are some easy questions we might want to ask right out of the gate.
Does a person have to be a liar to become the Secretary of State?
Hillary lied about dodging bullets in Bosnia, she lied about the murders of both Ambassador Stevens and brave American servicemen being killed in Benghazi, being caused by an anti-Muslim video. Then she steps down.
Right behind her, John Kerry who was caught lying about anti-war speeches, yacht registry problems and other mis-speaks, pops up as Obama's appointee for the job. Is the ability to tell straight faced lies what we look for in our Secretary; is it a prerequisite for the job?
Does Barack Obama's declaration that absolutism must not be mistaken for principle -apply to him?
Journalists of the day are loathe to depend on Wikipedia for all their cross referencing, but now and then we need to look no further, especially when their definitions hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Under 'dictator' Wikipedia says "A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with military control or bribes) but not officially sanctioned by heritage, as is an absolute monarch."
Now that Mr. Obama has used executive privilege more than any president in history and managed to circumvent much of the work of congress thereby, does the word, absolutist, used synonymously with the word dictator, mean he is a dictator, or by his own definition; is an unprincipled man?
Funny, how one question gives birth to so many others.
If Obama or his speech writers failed to connect the correlation between his use of the word absolutism, with his being labeled as a dictator or unprincipled president, how could his sycophants', adherents and happily obedient followers be expected to make the connection?
Lest we fail to mention it, millions of those who voted for Barack Obama are severely history challenged and unable to read at a fifth grade level – how lost is the Wikipedia definition on those voters.
If we find an alternative to oil, what will the Muslim nations do?
Curbing oil exploration, putting the brakes on the Canadian pipeline and regulating the oil companies into a deep pit while continuing to import oil from Arab nations may seem like a good idea to Mr. Obama, if we can find an alternative to oil.
MetLife's international advertising campaign drew attention to the "if" in life, but Obama's idea of an alternative to oil, is at the moment, an "if" that is much larger than life.
But let's imagine. If an alternative is found, what happens to the multi-billion dollar business of oil imports which Muslim nations now depend on? In countries like Saudi Arabia where the desert holds no other natural resources, what will happen to that economy?
Most OPEC nations will sink overnight, far below the level of third world countries. They would not have the means to carry a pea shooter up the block, so exporting Muslim extremism and terror would end overnight. We would then be exporting U.S. dollars to them to keep them afloat.
Was the dream of the Muslim president to wreck the entire Muslim world through a single technological breakthrough; or is that something he just never thought of?
The only thing more plentiful than OPEC oil, are the words spoken without much thought, produced by the liberals of the day. Too bad we couldn't burn them as an alternative fuel – the words – not the liberals.
Is it time to reverse the space program and get some things out of – outer space?
In the 60's the national quest was to get a man on the moon. Hooray, that's done. Mulling over moon rocks may still be a lot of fun but America's economy is on the rocks – earth rocks.
We have a president who has not submitted a budget in four years, spent untold billions on failed high tech nonsense that is actually way before its time, and bailed out everyone from the welfare moms to the largest corporations on the planet. Sixteen trillion dollars and counting, the national debt is further into outer space than any rocket, probe or satellite we have ever launched. But not to worry, Americans have responded to the crisis.
The American response has been to put the pop-culture icon amateur president Barack Obama back in office for a second term.
Americans are loathe to hear the negative rants of her doomsday prophets and prognosticators, but they are perfectly willing to put a doomsday president right back in office to finish the job of destroying its economy.
Many people agree, pulling some of the space debris down from outer space would be very wise. Why wouldn't they agree that we should try to get Barack Obama back down from the region of space where he actually sees himself as an economist who knows what he is doing? There seems to be time for vacations and golf, couldn't he find a little bit of time for some remedial economics courses?
Should all the blame be placed on Barack Obama, not so fast, there are plenty of places to -'re-distribute' the blame.
Untold millions of Americans too aloof to vote, Catholics who placed the word of Mr. Obama above their Pope, Evangelicals who couldn't accept Mitt Romney's Mormonism, tens of thousands of voters who were willing to commit fraud and last but not least; 62 million voters who thought it would be reasonable to let Barack Obama tinker with our failing economy for another four years to see if he could get it right.
It may be too late for economics courses, but I will offer a one line crash course in prophetic utterance. Our economy will crash and 'extreme poverty and scarcity' will follow, not in another twenty years but now.
How did the question about Obama's birth – become a question about when justice died?
Questions about Barack Obama's place of birth, his constitutional elegibilty, missing passport and school records and alleged false birth records, social security numbers and selective service records are still under review by a small army of experts and law enforcement officials. Those questions and the pursuit of the answers are easy to find. We will ask only one question here.
If a couple of crack detectives, a witness or two and a good prosecutor hand a case over to a jury of twelve men and women which results in the conviction of a burglar, a rapist or a murderer – aren't most of us satisfied to call that – justice?
Why do we label the work of dozens of detectives, forensic experts and a boat load of qualified witnesses on the question of Obama's place of origin and missing and fraudulent documentation – conspiracy theorists?
If Diogenes was living today and found one modern man who was honest, wouldn't he admit that the entire birth and records scandal is no longer about where Obama was born – it is now about where lady justice died.
If the gays were not born that way – have they been 'born again' that way?
Everyone knows of the term 'born again' because it is a reference to Christ insistence that no one would see the kingdom of God without being born again. (Jn 3: 3) By no means are we referring to that expression to frame the question posed here. Rather it is the theological opposite of the question that is open to examination.
Since children are not intrinsically evil and humans must reach the age of accountability before choosing a life of evil and general disobedience; are they born again of the spirit of the age (Satan) at the point they make that decision?
It takes no theological giant, exegete or expositor of basic Bible doctrine to come to the conclusion that they are. The Bible uses terms like "child of the devil" (Ac 13: 10,) "children of the devil" (1 Jn 3: 10,) and "children of disobedience" (Eph 2: 2) (Eph 5: 6) (Col 3: 6)
When an individual chooses to yield to satanic influences without resistance they become an agent for evil or a child of the devil. Whatever the particular temptation they yield to, has its own set of devils and demons that empower that specific division of Satan's kingdom.
If one third of the angels were cast out of heaven and followed Satan to the earth to help him set up his kingdom of darkness, would it be reasonable to conclude that they are not standing around twiddling their thumbs?
The math alone is hard to deny. If one women of the night (Mary Magdalene) had seven devils cast out of her (Lk 8:2) how many devils can the perverts of our day each have?
Gays have chosen a facile approach to the question which only speaks to their desperation in attempting to present their perversion to the world as a normal, un-chosen, case of "I was born this way."
The Apostle James warns that men should never say that when they are tempted to sin that God was doing the tempting. (Jas 1: 13, 14) Homosexuals have lowered the bar. According to them God has not led them to temptation, he simply made them that way – to start with.
There have always been liberals among us, but as the last days approach it will become a full free for all as predicted. How far gays go to justify their behavior is not surprising because heterosexuals go just as far. Case in point: On February 2, 2013 clashdaily.com posted a video where Sandra Fluke is seen comparing her fight for the government to provide coverage for her contraceptives with cancer treatment.
In the end, it is neither our faulty questions, nor our foolish answers, that decide our fate.
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." (Pr 21: 2)
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
